4A Seizure

Question 1

The Bostick Standard

Answer 1

“Whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the police’s requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.”

Question 2

US v. Drayton

Answer 2

Quick Summary: the police boarded a bus, asked to check luggage. Passengers were free to leave even though not told that. Respondents agreed to have luggage searched. Drugs found.

Respondents were not seized and their consent to the search was voluntary. Police did not brandish weapons and did not force them to stay.

A random interaction between police and persons is not a seizure.
Mere showing of badges/weapons is not sufficient to consider seizure.
factors to consider: force, intimidation, brandishing of weapons, blocking exit routes, threats, tone of voice. (Mendenhall Test)

Question 3

The Mendenhall Test (Pre Drayton)

Answer 3

a person is seized only if, in light of all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe they weren’t free to leave

Us v Mendenhall (1980) [pre-Drayton]– examples of factors of which might suggest that a given police-citizen exchange constitutes a “seizure” for 4a:
- Threatening presence of several officers
- Display of weapon by officer
- Some physical touching of the person of the citizen
- Use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance w officers request might be compelled

Question 4

CA v. Hodari (1991)

Answer 4

– a person who is fleeing hasn’t been seized, so 4A protection from seizure doesn’t come into play yet. Also Mendenhall is a necessary condition (hence, “only if”) to establish a seizure, but not a sufficient condition itself (or it would read “whenever” instead of “only if”) for seizure effected through a show of authority. Test for show of authority (Medenhall) is an objective one, not subjective, as to whether police actions constituted a seizure.

ARREST is QUINTESSENTIAL seizure under 4A. Gotta actually hold someone to have them under arrest. “Show of Authority” does not make it a seizure.

(1) Physical force with intent to constrain = arrest = seizure
(2) intent to constrain and submission to authority = arrest.
Show of authority + intent to restrain + submission to authority = seizure.

Question 5

Torres v. Madrid (2021)

Answer 5

Quick Summary: Torres thought cops were carjackers, tried escape, was shot by cops while driving away.

Still seizure even if physical force was unsuccessful in subduing, stopping, detaining, suspect.

physical force with intent to restrain = arrest = seizure.
This does not change because officers used bullets instead of their hands. Clearly still using force to stop her.
Seizure requires intent.

Question 6

Summarizing Seizure

Answer 6

1. Law enforcement must be acting “intentionally,” not accidentally. Brower.
2. A seizure does not occur unless a reasonable person would have believed that he/she was not free to leave, or that he/she was not free to terminate the encounter. Drayton.
   a. Note 1: (a) officer intent does not matter; and (b) not the reasonable suspect, but the reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes (objective test).
   b. Note 2: Drayton, following Mendenhall, lists factors to consider in reasonableness calculation.
3. Seizure does not occur unless some physical constraint occurs, whether by intentional application of physical force or physical submission to a show of authority. Hodari D.
4. The application of physical force to the body of a person with the intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued, and even if the physical force occurs with a weapon than by hand. Torres

Drayton [bus] + Brower [police barricade] + Hodari [police chase]  timing question